Measured Results

Verdict Benchmark Hub

Every number below comes from a saved results file and links to the full benchmark page.

These results were measured by Verdict on its own hardware. Results from sample tasks or test prompts are labelled on each card, and each card shows the date its numbers were recorded and what was held constant.

VerdictBaseline or other agentPassedFailed
1,140 TasksPublic benchmark tasks
Explore →

BigCodeBench: Reasoning × Harness

ToolTerse v5 with reasoning off and on, direct and through Verdict Code. Verified final scores, recorded tokens and separate historical competitor references.

As of 2026-10-28. Held constant: Same 1,140 Complete tasks and model ID on the M5 Max; one replicate. Prompts, output caps and concurrency differ across routes.

Tasks passed with reasoning on
Direct 661/1,140 (58.0%)Verdict Code 655/1,140 (57.5%)
No detected harness score difference; equivalence unproven
Seven Coding AgentsTest tasks written for this benchmark
Explore →

Agent Showdown

Verdict Code against Claude Code, Codex, Crush, opencode, aider and Pi, graded by hidden tests. Includes the lane Verdict Code loses.

As of 2026-10-28. Held constant: Same four tasks, limits and model per lane for every agent; 2 runs per task in the cloud, 1 on the local model. No pair is statistically significant.

GLM-5.3-flash, solved and list cost
Verdict Code 8/8 · $0.068Claude Code 8/8 · $0.283
Haiku 5.5, total wall time
Verdict Code 97 sClaude Code 195 s
Free local model, solved
Verdict Code 2/4Claude Code 4/4
Local vs CloudSample tasks
Explore →

Project Benchmark (10 Tasks)

Ten focused coding tasks scored by unit assertions, run on local and cloud models. The free local Tool Terse v5 model matches the cloud scores.

As of 2026-10-15. Held constant: Same 10 tasks and 33 unit assertions for every model; one run per model per task.

Tasks passed and cost for the 10 tasks
Tool Terse v5 (local) 10/10, $0Claude Sonnet 5.5 10/10, $0.0308Claude Haiku 5.5 10/10, $0.0029
PlanningSample PRDs
Explore →

Blueprint Planning

Verdict's Blueprint planner turns a specification into tasks and dependencies without calling a model. Native coding agents planned the same two specifications.

As of 2026-10-16. Held constant: Same two specifications and scoring rubric for every arm; one run each. Agents used their own native models, so this is not a same-model comparison.

Planning time, two specifications
Blueprint 0.46 s and 0.96 s, no model callClaude Code, Codex, Devin 5.3–17.2 s
Every arm passed 13/13 and 10/10
Hardware ThroughputTest prompts
Explore →

Hardware Concurrency: ON vs OFF

Model-aware parallel slots (ON) against serialized requests (OFF), from one to four concurrent requests, on six resident local models.

As of 2026-09-10. Held constant: Same 6 local models, prompts and machine (Apple M4 Max); only the slot mode changes.

30B Terse, 4 concurrent requests (2.25× faster)
Slots ON 1.38 sSlots OFF 3.10 s
Quill 4B, 4 concurrent requests
Slots ON 158.2 tok/sSlots OFF 99.6 tok/s
Context WindowTest prompts
Explore →

Context Headroom: 66k vs 262k

Four prediction slots at 66k versus 262k total loaded context, with prompts of about 18,000 tokens.

As of 2026-09-10. Held constant: Same model (35B Toolterse v5), prompts and machine; only the loaded context changes.

~18k-token prompts, four slots
262k context: completed66k context: failed
Multi-Model PanelPublic benchmark tasks
Explore →

Opinion & Decision Engine

Three local models each answer every task and Verdict's Decision step picks one. The pick matches the strongest single model; it does not beat it.

As of 2026-10-05. Held constant: Same 148 BigCodeBench-Hard tasks and prompts; one answer per local model.

Tasks passed by the chosen answer (of 148)
Decision pick 52 (35%)Best single model 53 (36%)
No significant difference (p = 1.0)
Ceiling: some panel answer passed 74 (50%); Decision cannot see the tests

Try Verdict on Your Own Hardware

Download Verdict to run local open-weights models on your own Mac.

Download VerdictView Plans & Pricing